2018 (5) TMI 258 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - The assessee s submissions with respect to the additions made under Section 68 were urged consistently before all revenue authorities; equally consistently, the revenue authorities rejected this explanation, with the exception of the CIT (A) who granted relief on a small aspect. This court is of the opinion that the findings impugned are entirely factual and fall within the exclusive domain of the revenue adjudicating and appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order.
2. Dispute regarding unexplained cash deposits in the bank account leading to additions under Section 68 of the Act.
3. Assessment of income based on cash deposits, withdrawals, and explanations provided by the assessee.
4. CIT(A) partially allowing the appeal, but confirming the addition of cash deposits by AO.
5. ITAT upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the current appeal before the High Court.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the ITAT's order, claiming it to be perverse and unreasonable. The case involved the assessee's return of income, which included salary, rental, interest, and dividend income. The dispute arose from cash deposits in the bank account, which the AO considered unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee explained the source of cash deposits, including rent, security payments, opening cash balance, and a cash gift from in-laws. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, accepting the opening cash balance but confirming the addition of cash deposits. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the cash deposits were explained in detail, supported by a cash flow statement and bank statements. The deposits were shown to be from withdrawals made in cash from the account, along with a cash gift received from in-laws. The counsel provided evidence of the gift's creditworthiness, including affidavits and financial documents. Despite these submissions, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision without appreciating the evidence provided by the assessee.

3. The High Court observed that the assessee's submissions regarding the additions under Section 68 were consistently presented to all revenue authorities. While the CIT(A) granted relief on a small aspect, the revenue authorities, except the CIT(A), rejected the explanations provided by the assessee. The Court noted that the findings in question were factual and fell within the revenue authorities' domain, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial question of law was found to arise.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as it found no substantial question of law in the case, emphasizing that the findings regarding the cash deposits were factual and within the revenue authorities' jurisdiction.